Laserfiche WebLink
4111 Mounds View City Council Page 14 <br /> Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 <br /> instances in which the Council approved Wetland Alteration Permits. <br /> He felt that because of the similar instances, along with the fact <br /> that the City Consulting Engineer gave testimony that this <br /> development would not adversely impact the Wetland, the City could <br /> not legally justify this denial. <br /> Trude said that the Resolution should be drafted with very specific <br /> contingencies and she would like to have the input of Rice Creek <br /> Watershed District. <br /> Linke commented that he would be voting against this motion for the <br /> same reasons stated by Councilmember Quick. Linke also stated that <br /> the Staff and City Consulting Engineer should spend adequate time <br /> developing contingencies necessary for approval. <br /> Trude suggested that if a Resolution to deny the Permit passed, the <br /> City could then begin taking steps to acquire the property, thereby <br /> avoiding legal expenses. <br /> Councilmember Wuori stated that she was not in favor of denying the <br /> Permit because of the possibility of legal action. The Courts are <br /> not favorable to "takings" ; they are very much pro-ownership <br /> • throughout the country. Although the present laws are directed at <br /> protecting Wetlands, this is not a Wetland--it's a Buffer Zone and <br /> not a protected entity. She concurred that a better Resolution <br /> should be drafted with more specific contingencies. Wuori advised <br /> that she would be voting against the motion in its present form. <br /> Keene offered that this Wetland issue should be put off until <br /> spring because a field delineation cannot be performed until the <br /> snow is gone. <br /> Linke said that the issue of timing for building the house was not <br /> a consideration for granting the Alteration Permit. His only <br /> concern is to makethebest-decision -for-the Council,_ for the City, <br /> and for the property owner. <br /> Trude asked if a denial could be based on the fact that the <br /> applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to the City to <br /> support the granting of a Permit. The burden is on the applicant <br /> to supply the City with supporting evidence. <br /> Thomson replied that the obligation of the applicant was to comply <br /> with what Municipal Code requires them to submit in order to get <br /> the Permit. <br /> Harrington said that all documentation required from the applicant <br /> 411 had, in fact, been received. <br />